Would you buy a new film camera?

[chipgreenberg]

I don't think any of the manufacturers would be interested in making a new mechanical SLR. These companies make money not only by selling camera bodies but also lenses. Only Nikon is still making manual focus SLR lenses, and the fact that the Df in 2013–14 lacked a proper focusing screen with split prism tells you that Nikon is not interested in selling those lenses. (I suspect the manual focus AI-S lenses still in the catalogue are made in Japan at less of a profit margin than the plastic autofocus junk they offshore to Thailand and China.) None of the other manufacturers offers a line of manual focus lenses anymore, and I don't think they'd be inclined to develop new lines of manual focus lenses or sell you a camera body that would only work for lenses they made thirty years ago. They would much rather consumers spend their money on new cameras and new lenses.

Zeiss does

 

[zuiko85]

Given my age, which I see is the same as you Robert, my answer is no. Of necessity the price of anything I’d want would be well north of $1K to $2K for a body. And what mount would the manufacturer choose? Everyone has a different preference.
Although my personal preference would be OM, for practical reasons I would suggest Nikon F or perhaps the Pentax K mount since both have long running support with a boatload of used optics both original and third party available.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

BTW, it looks like Kodak has just launched a brand new 35mm film camera, although I rather doubt it is what anyone on this site is looking for:

https://www.kodak.com/en/consumer/product/cameras/film/m35

 

[charjohncarter]

If my Bessa R went south (unrepairable), I'd purchase a new one if one was available.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

I would not. I'd spend the money on paper & chemicals. My existing cameras work well.

 

[robert blu]

I would certainly pay $1000 for a modern incarnation of a premium point and shoot camera.

Hmm, interesting thinking, maybe something like the Rollei 35...but my Rollei 35 still works!

No. I have too many film cameras as it is, and with the current prices for second hand analogue cameras, I should be selling some of them, instead.

I know the story...

BTW, it looks like Kodak has just launched a brand new 35mm film camera, although I rather doubt it is what anyone on this site is looking for:

https://www.kodak.com/en/consumer/product/cameras/film/m35

Small, pocketable, film based ! Why not? Ok, I know we like to play with controls, select lenses...

 

[mpaniagua]

Probably yeah, it if was something like Olympus OM3. All mechanic with some useful and well thought electronic that not rendered camera useless when failed. Something like a Leica but with more exposure tools I guess?

 

[Richard G]

An new MP or an MA would just be a disappointment for me.



Taken with the Olympus 50 f3.5 Macro by Richard, on Flickr

 

[narsuitus]

Here are the film cameras I already own that I would replace with a new one if I had the chance:

Nikon F2 SLR
Leica M6 rangefinder
Mamiya RB67 SLR

Here are the film cameras I once owned but would replace with a new one if I had the chance:

Mamiya 220 TLR
Nikon F2 titanium SLR

Here is the film cameras I never owned but would buy a new one provided I also had a guaranteed source of film:

Kodak No. 3A Folding Pocket Camera with supply of Kodak 122 roll film

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

No, I would not buy a new one. And it's not just because I don't shoot film.
I think the reason would come down to the fact that they just don't build 'em like they used to. The cost of making a 'good' mechanical camera, be it RF or SLR, would be so prohibitively high in today's manufacturing scene that it wouldn't be profitable. Yes you can get machines to make parts to a higher tolerance level than before, but the assembly of same parts via machine is not going to give you the 'feel' you get from a camera assembled by hand, IMO.

 

[Doug A]

If Leica were to make a new IIIf copy compatible with all of my LTM lenses and accessories I would be very tempted. Otherwise, no.

 

[jsrockit]

Hmm, interesting thinking, maybe something like the Rollei 35...but my Rollei 35 still works!

I was thinking the premium AF P&S cameras from the 90s.

 

[robert blu]

I was thinking the premium AF P&S cameras from the 90s.

I have somewhere a Fuji Miju ...not sure it still works 🙂

 

[krötenblender]

If the silver Zeiss Ikon ZM or the silver Fujifilm GF670 were still in production (or something similar with as much style and enjoyable user-experience), I would definitly buy one. Now, since they are not anymore, I have to try to hunt one down for a reasonable price. Meaning up to 1000€, instead of the inflated collectors prices, that are common these days.

 

[valdas]

I already have too many film cameras, but if the new one is something I like - why not. I would sell some old stuff to finance it.

 

[krötenblender]

No, I would not buy a new one. And it's not just because I don't shoot film.
I think the reason would come down to the fact that they just don't build 'em like they used to. The cost of making a 'good' mechanical camera, be it RF or SLR, would be so prohibitively high in today's manufacturing scene that it wouldn't be profitable.

Today, this is true indeed. But with advancing technology in 3D-printing, this can change. I have a cheap but new printer, that only prints PLA, but already is able to print precise enough to make working simple mechanics with gears and joints. Way better printers for printing metal with extremely high tolerance already exist, but are also extremely expensive and complex machines - as were printers like mine just a few years ago... So: in a few years ... who knows, whats possible. Small series with only very small need to assemble things after printing parts out for just a few hundred euros...?

 

[Franko]

The elusive plug-in digital module for 35mm cameras has always seemed the best solution to me. Interfacing the two might become easier with the advancements digital tech has made. All 35mm film cameras have pretty-much the same configuration for film plane and cartridge storage. How about an M6 digital? My iiif would certainly have one -if it doesn't take too long.

 

[willie_901]

No. There'd be no point. It would just sit on my shelf and gather dust like all the film cameras I already own.

Same


12345678910

 

[Godfrey]

Likely not, for reasons listed by several others. I have more than enough high quality film cameras already and I don't use any of them enough to justify another. I shoot more Polaroid SX-70 integral format film than any other film, and a smattering of 120 and Minox format, but the number of exposures made minuscule compared to the old days when I'd do a roll of 35mm film every other day, at least.

G

 

[Larry Cloetta]

I would certainly pay $1000 for a modern incarnation of a premium point and shoot camera.

So might I, but the economics of producing such a thing, and selling it for $1,000 make this totally unrealistic. Even more so since we are talking about Contax T3 level.
The responses here, from mostly people vastly more enamored with film photography than is the worldly norm, demonstrate why that is. Premium point and shoot cameras are, it’s true, the only film cameras for which supply and demand dictates inordinately high prices. Inordinate because the actual results from a T3 were not that fabulous, it was the convenience and coolness that was fabulous. Good, not fantastic. Had one.

For film cameras in general there are millions of perfectly serviceable film bodies floating around out there at prices well below any similarly specced new body could possibly be profitably produced for today.
There are just very, very few willing buyers, even of normal everyday quality film cameras to make producing another one economically feasible for any manufacturer. They read the market, they read threads like this. That’s why nobody makes a new high quality film camera body, it’s economic suicide for a producer at this point. That’s not an accident, or a missed opportunity on their part. Loss leader maybe, from a marketing standpoint, maybe good for that, but obviously not good enough to induce anyone to jump in. How much money did Nikon lose by their glorious foray into reproducing S3s and SP’s? And that was back when people were still buying film cameras. People took note, and the environment is much worse now. Lots of hipsters, just not enough.

Yes, I’d probably buy a new Contax T3 level camera for $1,000, which given inflation, is pretty inexpensive, but the small number of current buyers of such a thing, maybe 5% to 10% at most, of the numbers who bought the original, would push the manufacturer’s profitable list price well over $3,000 to cover development and production costs for the few they would ever sell. And that’s being Very conservative.
And before someone beclowns themselves by talking 3D printing, they should take a T3 apart and look at it for a while. Or any reasonably sophisticated camera. 3D printing can do pinhole cameras. Barely.

There are enough perfectly usable analog cameras out there right now to last all interested parties for at least another 80 years, even if mechanical issues take 90% of them off the playing field. Maybe then, if anybody’s still interested. Though judging by the indicative responses here on this thread, nobody’s even interested now. (94,445 new listings just on ebay today for film cameras.)
New film camera is a nice thought, and I am as much a dreamer as anyone, probably more so, but this is a pipedream.
YMMV.